2025 (5) TMI 970

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....IT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in initiating and levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act without recording mandatory satisfaction as contemplated under the Act at the time of framing the assessment order. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the penalty of Rs. 5,46,79,979/- (rectified amount Rs. 4,92,24,537/-) levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. In any case, quantification of the penalty is erroneous and excessive. 4. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....odify, or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal. Total tax effect Rs. 4,92,24,537/-" 3. The assessee filed return of income for assessment year 2014-15 on 25-09-2014 declaring total income at Rs. 36,02,12,530/- and tax was paid u/s. 115JB on income to Rs. 83,90,46,530/-. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) and additions were made to the total normal income by disallowing deduction u/s. 32AC of Rs. 16,08,70,789/- and disallowance u/s. 14A of Rs. 32,11,000/-. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271 after recording satisfaction by making addition of Rs. 16,08,70,789/- u/s. 32AC for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ubmitted that this issue has been admitted by the Hon'ble High Court and is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. The ld. A.R. submitted that merely rejecting the claim of the assessee cannot be the ground for levy of penalty, as this will not be termed inaccurate furnishing of particulars of income u/s. 271(1)(c). The ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158. The ld. A.R. submitted that the quantification of penalty is also substantially higher side in view of the book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act. 6. The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials availab....